Uncategorized
Another Colorful Case of Fake Credentials
This story is about a box of crayons, and in it there is a lesson in following audit trails and fake credentials. This is another case where the world is a slightly nastier place because of it.
There is also a valuable lesson about third party registration as a way to reduce risk.
The Case of the Nasty Crayons
Here is the story. A box of crayons appeared in front of me the other day for some reason. These had been purchased at one of the famous dollar stores. At least this story illustrates how to follow an audit trail. It also opens up a can of worms, but good audit trails are all about opening cans of worms.
Needs and Expectations of Interested Parties (ISO9001:2015 clause 4.1)
I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, the product requirements of a crayon are simple. Firstly, they need to function properly as crayons, i.e. when you try to color something they should work at some level. The exact level has been well established informally for decades now.
I am aware that over half of the readers of this are outside the continental US. At the bottom of the page is a further conversation about how, in the US, at one time crayons played a very important cultural role.
Over and above that, there is some expectation that they won’t kill your kid if he or she inadvertently eats one. Also, although crayons are a bit messy anyway, they need to not leave annoying crumbs all over.
The crayons pictured above failed on at least two of the three minimum requirements. There is some question about the third.
Unstated Customer Requirements (ISO9001:2015 clause 8.2.3.1b)
We are not going too far out on a limb by making the assumption that the producer of these crayons is not ISO registered. What this boils down to is that when you go into a store, even a dollar type store, you expect your crayons to meet the above “minimal standards” as defined somehow.
Whose fault is it if they don’t? That is a can of worms that we don’t need to open at the moment. At one time it was thought that it was the role of government to protect consumers from this sort of thing. However, in the past few years, there has been some drift away from this idea, in favor of individual responsibility. I will listen to arguments either way.
A Colorful Audit Trail: Possible Fake Credentials
To tell the truth, I just sort of laughed this off until I looked closely at the box. The package stated conformity to ASTM D-4236. Now, instead of an annoying box of crayons, we have an audit trail. I guess I’ve been on one too many audits. I was compelled to chase the requirements of ASTM D-4236. People do what they do.
Come to find out, this is a voluntary ASTM standard that involves toxic “art supplies”. For those who are unaware, a lot of the pigments used in paints and other materials contain heavy metals.
Apparently they also contain a variety of other toxic materials as suggested by this article from 2018.
Link to Article about Toxic Crayons
Also come to find out that this specification requires a toxicology report. It also requires various labeling requirements per the two snippets below:
Here is a link to the 2001 revision ASTM D-4236. There apparently is a more recent revision. If 50 of you feel like I should get the current version, I can make that happen. I will put a paypal button below so you can each contribute $1.
There is a school of thought that says a lot of this is overblown, and a little asbestos never hurt anybody. The reader may make his or her own determination on this important issue as well. I would go with what the toxicologist thinks, if there is one. Even the toxicologist will express this as a probability and you will have to make the decision.
Other side point: The ASTM D-4236 spec itself clearly states that conformity doesn’t mean the crayons aren’t toxic. It only actually means that they have a board certified toxicologist telling you that they are in advance.
So Here is our finding:
Requirement: Per ISO9001:2015 clause 8.2.2
When determining the requirements for the products and services to be offered to customers, the organization shall ensure that:the requirements for the products and services are defined, including:
any applicable statutory and regulatory requirements;
those considered necessary by the organization;
the organization can meet the claims for the products and services it offers.
The Non Conformity is that the organization does not always meet the product claim, i.e “conforms to ASTM D-4236” and the objective evidence is the packaging above, and the requirements from the ASTM spec. We don’t know whether the crayons are actually toxic or not. We do know for sure they didn’t meet the packaging requirement.
So to be extra thorough, I did send an email to “Greenbrier International Inc.” (Link to Bloomberg) who is on the box as the distributor. I asked for the above toxicology certificate. I will get back with you in the highly unlikely event they send it to me. If this were an audit I would give the auditee a known amount of time to come up with it. Until then I will keep an open mind.
Possible Additional Findings
There could be additional findings: For one thing, why did their internal audit program not turn this up? If it did, and no one fixed it, why did the corrective action system not work? Since nothing happens in isolation, are there other examples of fake credentials?
Can I write a finding for the crayons being terrible? Maybe. If I can find a documented customer requirement somewhere, that these crayons don’t meet, this could pretty easily turn into a “major” non conformance. If there is a product development laboratory somewhere, with a written specification, we can look for a design specification on “writing ability” somewhere. Until then I have to assume that it is a conscious management decision to sell terrible crayons. As an auditor that particular thing is not up to me to decide.
If I can turn up a couple more findings while chasing this, we can probably escalate this to “major.”
Who are these guys?
Come to find out, this company imports and distributes literally hundreds of products, and also sell some of these on Amazon. One of our previous Fake Credential posts from before touched on Amazon. (Link to Story).
Side point: There is no date code or traceability ID on this box either. For all we know it could have been subject to the recall from 2018. If there is a traceability requirement, a further non-conformance could be raised against 8.5.2
Does any of this matter?
I suppose when we are talking about crayons, maybe fake credentials are a bit funny. But, when we are talking about nuclear reactor parts, maybe it is not so funny.
The question of the day is, where do we draw the line? In the continuum of products ranging from crayons to nuclear reactor parts, at what point does lying on a product label become intolerable?
The state of Michigan has answered this question partially in the case of counterfeit airbags.
https://www.wemu.org/post/felony-penalties-installing-counterfeit-airbags-could-be-way-michigan
Certification as a way to reduce Risk
What we’re really talking about with any type of certification is a way to reduce risk. In the case above, the printing of the statement of conformity on the box is a way to incrementally reduce the fear of a consumer getting an inferior product. We all know that not one in a thousand consumers is going to take the time to look up that standard, and only one is going to write to get the toxicology certificate. All they know is that it “conforms” to something that looks official, except in this case, it actually doesn’t.
People have limited resources and time to be able to track this stuff down. Hopefully the purchasing person at the nuclear power plant is more diligent than your normal consumer. They might be able to do a better job of assessing legitimacy.
This is why fake credentials are especially annoying. The phrase “conforms to” implies some level of product integrity. Without some system of policing this, people are allowed to use this as a way to sell you something. This is the very definition of fraud.
What can or should be done about this?
We are in an age right now where this sort of thing is commonplace. If you rob a bank, and get a million dollars, it is a crime. But, if you misrepresent reality on a million boxes of inferior crayons, it is fine, and your stock goes up.
As we know, even the claim of certification or registration can be fraudulent. There is no apparent remedy for fake credentials other than aggressive policing somehow.
As it applies to ISO certification, however, there is a policing mechanism. In a case where I am your auditor, I can tell you with very close to absolute certainty that I will lean on you to fix this. The actual policing mechanism is you, the client, who has systems in place to keep this kind of thing from happening. Your quality policy is required to have a statement of meeting requirements, and this sort of thing is precisely what the standard talks about.
Otherwise, there seems to be no sentiment for policing this kind of thing at the moment. In fact, the opposite may be the current trend. The world is a less colorful, and nastier place because of it.
The real problem is that when something like that statement of conformity appears on a box of screwed up crayons, it reduces the value of the ones that are legitimate.
I wish the news was better. At least we found an everyday example of a fraudulent claim of conformity and we can build on that.
Crayons
I don’t suppose if you are from outside the US, you can appreciate crayons like we do.
One of the best memories of childhood for some of us is opening up a fresh box of crayons on the first day of school every year. Nothing says optimism like the smell, and feel, of a beautiful box of crayons. For that moment, you are a great artist, and you have a box of beautiful art in your hands. The reality sets in later.
Maybe that’s why the crayons above ticked me off so much. Reality set in 15 seconds later.
By the end of the school year of course they will be broken, and dull, and it won’t be the same. A lot of life is like that.
Vintage Crayon Story
Back in the stone age, this was also a way to know which kids came from families that are better off financially, The minimum was 8 crayons of different colors in a box. Maybe you got 16 or 32. The rich kids got 64 colors. The names of the colors themselves were part of the allure. “light brown” is one thing, “burnt sienna” is another. I think I was a “16 crayon” kid most years, although I think one year I got to 48. The world is a little less beautiful if you are a 16-crayon kid. I guess the 8-crayon kids went on to sell counterfeit airbags.
I think the PC people started paying attention to this a few years ago, and in some places everybody dumps their crayons into a community box. That way nobody gets to feel bad because mom (it’s usually mom) can’t send a nice box of crayons with you. They also have gotten to some of the color names, as anyone who has tried to find the color “flesh” needs to know, and that is probably the way it should be.
The box at home, with year-old crayons with the blunt ends, and paper cover chewed off is gone now too.
Anyway, I can never remember getting a defective crayon. All of ours wrote, and colored properly, and they did leave some crumbs but it was not excessive. The terrible artwork was on us.
Hey, you can even get “Indian Red” on ebay. Life is short.
